Re: Uptick in spam

On 27/10/15 05:40, Jutta Zalud wrote: >>> But it is originating all from different IP addresses. Who knows if this >>> is an attack to get *@jdlabs.fr blocked from NANOG and is just getting >>> its goal accomplished. >> >> This is the part that's been bugging me. Doesn't the NANOG server >> implem

Re: Uptick in spam

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Rich Kulawiec wrote: It would be nice if it did; it would be nice if the fatuous claim made at SPF's introduction ("Spam as a technical problem is solved by SPF") were true. But it's not. It's worthless. I disagree. Since implementing SPF, there have been no joe-jobs on

Re: Uptick in spam

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 10:18:11AM -0400, Ian Smith wrote: > I'm not making any argument about the relation of SPF compliance to message > quality or spam/ham ratio. You are no doubt correct that at this point in > the game SPF doesn't matter with respect to message quality in a larger > context,

Re: Uptick in spam

22 emails later (only counting this thread)... Can someone with the proper privileges confirm they have the spam under control? I think any solution would be acceptable at this point. If you all would like to debate the pros/cons of different spam filtering theories after the spam has subsided, I

Re: Uptick in spam

hosted gmail did catch some of the spam but not all , into auto junk filter due to some of the weblinks were spammy Colin > On 27 Oct 2015, at 14:18, Ian Smith wrote: > > I'm not making any argument about the relation of SPF compliance to message > quality or spam/ham ratio. You are no doubt

Re: Uptick in spam

On 2015-10-27 13:08, Ian Smith wrote: But that's not how SPF works. In SPF, the domain of the envelope header sender address is checked against that domain's sender policy. Since jdlabs.fr has no policy specified, a strict SPF policy at the NANOG server would have prevented this small issue.

Re: Uptick in spam

I'm not making any argument about the relation of SPF compliance to message quality or spam/ham ratio. You are no doubt correct that at this point in the game SPF doesn't matter with respect to message quality in a larger context, because these days messages that are not SPF compliant will simply

Re: Uptick in spam

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 09:08:00AM -0400, Ian Smith wrote: > But it's a bit of a stretch to say that [SPF] has zero value. No, it's not a stretch at all. It's a statistical reality. And a single isolated case does not alter that. You're welcome to set up your own network of spamtraps and mailbo

Re: Uptick in spam

But that's not how SPF works. In SPF, the domain of the envelope header sender address is checked against that domain's sender policy. Since jdlabs.fr has no policy specified, a strict SPF policy at the NANOG server would have prevented this small issue. As for the utility of SPF, well. It's no

Re: Uptick in spam

Am 27.10.2015 13:09, schrieb Ian Smith: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Octavio Alvarez > wrote: > >> On 26/10/15 11:38, Jürgen Jaritsch wrote: >> >> > But it is originating all from different IP addresses. Who knows if this >> is an attack to get *@jdlabs.fr blocked from NANOG and is just g

Re: Uptick in spam

Hi, > not even close to more discussing than from the original spam. Not even > close. data volume wise, the discussion of spam is easily beating the volume of spam (which some people had issue with) as the SPAM emails were very small with just a URL - the discusions about it is now spread int

Re: Uptick in spam

On 10/26/2015 22:26, Andrew Kirch wrote: not even close to more discussing than from the original spam. Not even close. Not even in the same order of magnitude, I don't think. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

Re: Uptick in spam

[mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Smith > Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:34 PM > To: Paras > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Uptick in spam > > Filtering *@jdlabs.fr did the trick for me. > > Of course, now I have to write a much more complex filter to h

RE: Uptick in spam

I think there might be more emails discussing the spam, than the actual spam itself. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Smith Sent: Monday, October 26, 2015 12:34 PM To: Paras Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Uptick in spam Filtering

Re: Uptick in spam

Hey! Maybe this is relevant: On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Paras wrote: > I see it too, there are some 517 messages in my spam folder "New message" > > Most of them get blocked, but a small fraction are still making it i

Re: Uptick in spam

Filtering *@jdlabs.fr did the trick for me. Of course, now I have to write a much more complex filter to hide all the complaining about NANOG spam :) Ian Smith 161 South St. Hightstown, NJ 201-315-1316 phone ian.w.sm...@gmail.com On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at

Re: Uptick in spam

I see it too, there are some 517 messages in my spam folder "New message" Most of them get blocked, but a small fraction are still making it into my inbox On 10/25/2015 12:13 AM, anthony kasza wrote: Has there been a recent uptick in crap sent to the list or is it just me? Is there anything t

RE: Uptick in spam

All. Weekend. Long. I wanted someone to say something before I did. I thought I was the only one. Kirill Klimakhin Principal Consultant kirill.klimak...@corebts.com www.corebts.com -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+kirill.klimakhin=corebts@nanog.org] On Behalf O

Re: Uptick in spam

I added this to my postfix header_checks: /^Subject:.*\bFw: new message/ REJECT No more new messages please On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 21:13:58 -0700 anthony kasza wrote: > Has there been a recent uptick in crap sent to the list or is it just > me? Is there anything that we can do to filter

RE: Uptick in spam

It's not just you. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+milt=net2atlanta@nanog.org] On Behalf Of anthony kasza Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2015 12:14 AM To: North American Network Operators Group Subject: Uptick in spam Has there been a recent uptick in crap sent to the